Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “of a boot and can be” (line 4) should be replaced with -- of the boot and can be --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne, US 2015/0327622 in view of Olivieri, US 4,090,278.
Regarding claim 1, Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) discloses a buckle (M2) [for a lacing device of a boot (1)] comprising a base part (17) and a grip lug (14), wherein the base part (17) can be placed with an underside of the base part (17) against a shell (2) of the boot (1) and can be fastened to the shell (2), wherein the base part (17) has at least one first receiving extension (notch 160 of element 16) on an upper side (figures 2-3) of the base part (17), and wherein a swivel element (140) is configured on the grip lug (14), wherein in an engagement position the swivel element (140) is latched at least in certain regions in the first receiving extension (160) to form a swivelable first latching connection (figures 4-5), so that the grip lug (14) can be swiveled in the engagement position from an open engagement position (figure 4) into a closed engagement position (figure 5) using the swivel element (the user folds the base part 17 toward side 2b, pulls the lace 10, brings the grip lug 14 toward the extension 160, engages the swivel element 140 in the receiving extension 160 to reach the open engagement position as shown in the figure 4, then tilts the lug 14 by arrow R3 to reach the tightened configuration of figure 5), wherein at least one first latching extension (a second different notch 160) is configured on the upper side of the base part (17), and wherein the grip lug (14) is configured with at least one latching element (portion of 14 adjacent opening O14) corresponding to the first latching extension (160; see figure 3), wherein the first latching extension (160) and the latching element (near O14) are configured such that, in the closed engagement position (figure 5), the latching element (near O14) is latched at least in certain regions on the first latching extension (160) to form a releasable second latching connection (on the different notch 160; when the grip lug 14 is tilted to cause the lace 10 to be housed in the different notch 160, the lace 10 is blocked in the notched element by the tilting of the lever/lug 14; see figure 5), so that the grip lug (14) is secured in the closed engagement position against leaving the engagement position and against swiveling into the open engagement position (the lace in the notch 160 maintains the tightened configuration as shown in the figure 5).
Chaigne does not explicitly disclose that the swivel element (140) is latched at least in certain regions in the first receiving extension (160) to form the swiveable first latching connection wherein the first latching connection enables pre-fixing of the grip lug (14) in the open engagement position, so that unintentional leaving of the open engagement position of the grip lug (14) is made more difficult. It is noted that Chaigne discloses the hinge shaft (140) is housed in a notch (160), without any structure that secures or restrains that connection independently of the rotational position of the lever/lug (14).
Olivieri teaches a swivel element (9) latched at least in certain region in the first receiving extension (5) to form a swiveable first latching connection (the plate 7, carrying the ‘gripping lug’ 2 that is hingedly mounted thereon via the ‘swivel element’ 9, is secured to the ‘extension’ 5 when the bolt 12 is swung downwardly so that its free edge engages the front recess 105), wherein the first latching connection (between 5 and 12) enables pre-fixing of the grip lug (2) in the open engagement position, so that unintentional leaving of the open engagement position of the grip lug (2) is made more difficult.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the swivel element and the first receiving extension of Chaigne to include the swiveable first latching connection taught by Olivieri in which the swivel element is secured to the first receiving extension (via the bolt 12) independent of the rotational position of the grip lug in order to obtain a more secure, releasable pivot mounting.
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the buckle, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the buckle tightening mechanism taught by the combination of Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) and Olivieri (US 4,090,278), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 1. Chaigne further discloses wherein the grip lug is configured with a lead-through (O14), the lead-through (O14) being arranged so as to extend at least substantially parallel to a swivel axis (relative to 140) of the swivel element (140), [and the lead-through (O14) being configured to receive and deflect a rope- or strap-shaped pulling means of a lacing device (10)].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 2. Chaigne further discloses wherein the lead-through (O14) is configured in the region of the swivel element (140), or in the swivel element (140), or in a sleeve in the swivel element, or wherein the lead-through (O14) is arranged in a distance to the swivel element.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 2 except for wherein the lead-through (O14), or the swivel element (140) in the region of the lead-through, or the sleeve is formed from an electrically non-conductive material and wherein the remaining part of the grip lug (right part) is formed from an electrically conductive material.
It is known in the art to utilize plastic material as a substitute for metal, and vice versa, in the mechanical art since the technology of plastic components have matured in the industrial market and the mechanical properties of plastic have been improved to be as strong and advantageous as metallic components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the swivel component formed of plastic (more flexible) and the grip lug formed of metal (sturdier), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 1. Chaigne further discloses wherein the latching element (near O14) is configured as at least one aperture in the grip lug, or wherein the latching element (near O14) is configured as a bolt (see figure 2) in the grip lug (14).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 1. Chaigne further discloses wherein a second receiving extension (a first extending portion of 18) and a second latching extension (a second extending portion of 18) are configured on the upper side (see figure 3) of the base part (left part), the second receiving extension (the distal end portion of 18) and the first latching extension (16) being configured on the same extension (see figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 6. Chaigne further discloses wherein a tooth bar (defining notches 160 in between) is configured by the first latching extension (18) and the second latching extension (16).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 1. Chaigne further discloses wherein the base part (left part) is in one piece (figure 2) [and can be connected in a fixed position to a shell (2) of a boot (1)], wherein the at least one first receiving extension (18) and the at least one first latching extension (16) are integrally formed (when integrated) onto the base part (see figure 2), or wherein the base part is multi-part and has a first base part portion (see rivet element attached to the part portion) [which can be connected in a fixed position to a shell (2) of a boot (1), wherein the first base part portion (figure 2) is coupled via a further swivel element (200) to a second base part portion (see figure 2) [which can be placed against the shell (2) of a boot (1)], wherein the at least one first receiving extension (18) and the at least one first latching extension (16) are integrally formed onto the second base part portion (20).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 1. Chaigne further discloses wherein the buckle comprises an intermediate plate (20), wherein the intermediate plate (20) is arranged on the underside (see figure 2) of the base part (left part of the buckle) [and can be positioned between a shell (2) of a boot (1) and the base part], wherein the intermediate plate (20) has a tongue (see the rivet element in figure 2) projecting beyond the base part (figure 2), [wherein the tongue can be brought into direct contact with the shell (2)].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches a lacing device [for a boot], wherein the lacing device (12) can be attached to a shell (2) of a boot (1), wherein the shell (2) comprises a forefoot shell (a front portion of the boot 1) [for receiving a user's foot], and wherein the forefoot shell has a first shell portion (see element 4) [configured to be positioned on the inside of the foot when the boot is worn by the user and a second shell portion (see element 2b) configured to be positioned on the outside of the foot when the boot is worn by the user], the lacing device (12) comprising at least one buckle (M2), a rope- or ribbon-shaped pulling means (10), and two anchoring points (see figure 1), wherein the pulling means (10) extends in a meandering manner starting from the anchoring points (having the keepers 12) and is arranged to pass through the at least one buckle (M2), wherein the at least one buckle (M2) is configured according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10. Chaigne further discloses wherein three buckles (M2, 100, 102) are configured, wherein two buckles (100, 102) can be arranged on the first shell portion (4), and wherein the two anchoring points (where the keepers 12 are mounted) and the third buckle (M2) can be arranged on the second shell portion (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10. Chaigne further discloses wherein the pulling means (10) is guided at least in some areas over a tongue (of 20) of an intermediate plate (20) and rests at least in some areas on the tongue (see figure 1), so that a force acting from the pulling means (10) on a shell (2) of a boot (1) is guided and distributed via the tongue (of the plate 20) onto the shell (1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10. Chaigne further discloses wherein the intermediate plate (20) is configured on a buckle (M2) arranged on the first shell portion (4), the tongue of the intermediate plate (20) extending to an outer edge or at least to a close region of the outer edge of the first shell portion (4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10. Chaigne further discloses wherein a buckle (M2) is attached to the second shell portion (having elements 2a, 2b), wherein the base part (left part) extends over an instep region up to the first shell portion (see figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10 except for wherein the rope- or ribbon-shaped pulling means (10) is formed from an electrically conductive material or has an electrically conductive surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pulling means made of metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further, the Examiner takes Official Notice that metal laces, cables, or wires used in footwear and sporting equipment are inherently electrically conductive and it is well known in the art that ski boots employ metal cables (or wires) as laces in place of textile laces due to the high tensile strength, durability and resistance to stretching of the metal lacing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the metal lace is electrically conductive as a material property since the metal wires (cables) are used in many ski boots (such as Chaigne’s) to provide high tensile strength, durability and stretching resistance.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri teaches the buckle according to claim 10. Chaigne further discloses wherein at least one of the anchoring points (30) [is configured with an adjustable fine or superfine adjustment device for varying a length of the pulling means (18)].
Regarding claim 17, Chaigne further discloses a boot (1) with a shell (2) comprising a forefoot shell (at the front of the boot; see figure 1) [for receiving a foot of a user], wherein the forefoot shell has a first shell portion (see element 2b in the figure 1) [configured to be positioned on the inside of the foot when the boot is worn by the user] and a second shell portion (4) [configured to be positioned on the outside of the foot when the boot is worn by the user], wherein the first shell portion (2b) and the second shell portion (4) are spaced apart in an instep region (between said shell portions), or wherein the first shell portion is configured as an upper shell portion and the second shell portion is configured as a lower shell portion, and the first shell portion overlaps the second shell portion at least in certain areas in an instep region, starting from an inner boot edge in the direction of an outer boot edge, wherein the boot (1) is configured with at least one buckle (M2) according to claim 1 (taught by the combination of Chaigne and Olivieri) and/or wherein the boot is configured with a lacing device that can be attached to the shell of the boot, the lacing device comprising at least one buckle, a rope- or ribbon-shaped pulling means, and two anchoring points, wherein the pulling means extends in a meandering manner starting from the anchoring points and is arranged to pass through the at least one buckle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include new features not previously presented for consideration and therefore necessitated a new ground of rejection as set forth above. The teaching reference by Olivieri demonstrates that hingedly and removably mounting a grip lug (lever) to a boot’s anchoring structure via a pin is a known and recognized solution for pivot security while still permitting removal (for substitution or maintenance).
Applicant has argued that a person skilled in the art upon reading the disclosure would understand and interpret the terms “first latching connection”, “second latching connection” and “latched” as a snap-in connection. The argument is found not persuasive since a latching connection does not require a snap-in feature as argued and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner is not required to import limitations from the specification into the claims unless the disclosure provides an explicit definition to read on the snap-in feature (Applicant acts as their own lexicographer). Moreover, the specification does not define “latching connection” as a snap-in connection but instead is describing the word “latched” as a verb for the functional state (a retention) and not the argued snap-in mechanism. As rejected, the recitation “latched at least in certain regions in the first receiving extension to form a swiveable first latching connection” does not require a snap-in engagement, it requires only the swivel element to be regionally constrained within the receiving extension such that a latching connection is established. Chaigne’s swiveling element (140) inserted between two teeth of the tooth rail (16) and is laterally bounded, therefore it cannot be displaced without a removal force and thus satisfying the “latched at least in certain regions” requirement.
Applicant has further argued that Chaigne does not read on the claimed second latching connection because a latching element is not provided by its pull tab 14. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the claim above wherein the latching element is considered the portion of the tab 14 that is near the opening O14 (when the lever 14 is in the second latching connection, the arm material of 142 surrounding O14 is the structure of the grip lug that presses against and retains the lace 10 within another notch 160, completing the second latching connection). As rejected, the lace 10 is providing the second latching connection via an engagement between the portions of the tab 14 that are located near the opening O14, wherein said portions are connected to the notched element 16 and latched via the lace.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited. For example, Olivieri US 4,011,634 teaches a buckle for a boot wherein a latching element (12) latched at least in certain regions on a first latching extension (notch 7) to form a releasable second latching connection (without the possibility of sliding) so that the grip lug (2) is secured in the closed engagement position against leaving the engagement position and against swiveling into the open engagement position.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights